Yet more evidence of Mr. "D"

[_wenglund]

Some of you may remember my anology in which I mentioned a Mr. "D" who left the Church with the best of feelings towards the Church and didn't consider the Church to be a fraud or not acting in good faith about what it claims to be. Rather, he viewed his departure as due to but a difference of opinions.

There were those who doubted the very existence of such people, and were unsatisfied with the anecdotal evidence I proffered in support thereof. They also dismissed Don Bradley as a viable example (his own comments in support thereof notwithstanding).

I am not sure they will accept Richard Dutcher as a case in point (some people's minds are closed to even the most obvious evidence), but I think his exit letters (see the thread, "Richard Dutcher - the Exmo") shows him to fit the Mr. "D" profile perfectly. That Richard's last name begins with "D", makes him all the more fitting. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

You know, I thought the same thing when I posted the thread.

If those are his true feelings, then I'd be tempted to agree. However, one's thoughts as expressed in the newspaper to the public, may not reflect reality. Especially given his final words on the subject:

I’m sure many of you are as confused by my decisions as you were before you started reading. I apologize, but these words are as much as I want to share, publicly, at this time. I hope to meet many of you, individually, in the coming years. If circumstances allow, we can sit down quietly and privately—maybe even over a dark Irish beer—and I can tell the story in more detail. Until then.

So, I'd say that at this point, yes, this is your best candidate for Mr. D.

Afterall, there are always exceptions/ouliers.

[_The Dude]

Wade, what do you think of the limits of LDS acceptance of "Dr. D"? Here we have Dutcher stating that he feels Heavenly Father is leading him to another path, and in response we see people challenging the very notion that a person can find God without Mormonism:

I can't leave unchallenged the notion that the gospel of Christ as revealed through and taught by the prophets is something that one can outgrow and still hope to find God.

But, for some unknown reason, our mutual Father in Heaven requires that I take another route.

Yeah, I imagine that last sentence will be difficult for most Latter-day Saints to swallow.

I think we would see more people leaving on good terms if there wasn't this pervasive notion among members that there is no valid path but Mormonism. Whether they say it or not, most Latter-day Saints must think Dr D is making a huge mistake. And if he actually comes out and says he thinks God is guiding him to another path, as Dutcher has done, it gets worse. It cannot go unchallenged. How would you expect potential "Dr Ds" to respond to this attitude? I think it is very disrespectful, and poisonous to relationships.

[_wenglund]

You know, I thought the same thing when I posted the thread.

If those are his true feelings, then I'd be tempted to agree. However, one's thoughts as expressed in the newspaper to the public, may not reflect reality. Especially given his final words on the subject:

I’m sure many of you are as confused by my decisions as you were before you started reading. I apologize, but these words are as much as I want to share, publicly, at this time. I hope to meet many of you, individually, in the coming years. If circumstances allow, we can sit down quietly and privately—maybe even over a dark Irish beer—and I can tell the story in more detail. Until then.

So, I'd say that at this point, yes, this is your best candidate for Mr. D.

Afterall, there are always exceptions/ouliers.

I am grateful for your generousity in granting at least this.

However, I don't think it matters whether he is the exception or the rule. The point of the analogy was to suggest that there sre more healthy and workably ways (personal and relationship-wise) of leaving the Church and viewing the Church after unbelief than what we find with the Mr. and Mrs. "B"'s, such as yourself. I think that Richard "D"'s approach, while not without its bumps and hickups, will over the long run serve him far better (personally and relationship-wise) than were he to immerse himself in anger, grief, teeth-gnashing, and/or perpetual or prolonged naysaying and negativity. He doesn't strick me as someone who views himself in any victomological way, nor do I see him as thinking he is in any way in need of "recovery". And, if that is possible for him, then it is certainly possible for others as well. Hallalooya!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Perhaps how long he remains a "Mr. D" will have to do with how LDS will now treat him.

I suspect that if he has to endure too many speculations about his sinful or proud nature, he will eventually sour.

[_Who Knows]

The point of the analogy was to suggest that there sre more healthy and workably ways (personal and relationship-wise) of leaving the Church and viewing the Church after unbelief than what we find with the Mr. and Mrs. "B"'s, such as yourself.

I'm just curious as to how his approach (assuming he is a Mr. D) is 'healthier'. That would seem to suggest that I'm somehow less healthy? In what ways? What are you measuring here?

[_The Dude]

Perhaps how long he remains a "Mr. D" will have to do with how LDS will now treat him.

I suspect that if he has to endure too many speculations about his sinful or proud nature, he will eventually sour.

That's exactly what I was getting at. It isn't just the apostates who need to have a "healthier" attitude.

[_Who Knows]

I also think, before jumping to the conclusion that Dutcher is in fact a 'Mr. D', we need to realize that he is saying this now, but he has given no indication as to what he went through as he figured this stuff out.

He says that he's been going through this for 2 years now, and he can say now that he's not angry at the church, or Joseph Smith, or Hinckley, etc.

I would pretty much say the same thing now. I don't hold any animosity towards the church. I'm not angry at all.

That's not to say that I didn't go through some of that when I was initially going through my 'discovery'. It's been about 2 years for me too, and I'd echo what Dutcher says. However, I'm no Mr. D.

[_Who Knows]

Perhaps how long he remains a "Mr. D" will have to do with how LDS will now treat him.

I suspect that if he has to endure too many speculations about his sinful or proud nature, he will eventually sour.

That's exactly what I was getting at. It isn't just the apostates who need to have a "healthier" attitude.

This is the very reason that Dutcher had to write that 'follow-up' letter.

[_Analytics]

Would Mr. D. say this?

It’s unpleasant to acknowledge, but the LDS community has a history of character assassination. It is an ugly truth, but it is the truth. I have often joked (darkly, and among friends only) that when wandering sheep stray from the fold, Mormons don’t go looking for them. What happens is: somebody climbs up on a really tall tower, takes out a high-powered rifle, gets the poor straying soul in the cross-hairs, and then blows his wandering brain out.

When individuals leave the fold, why do we find it necessary to blacken their names? This has been the case since the earliest days. Back then, a church member or leader could be in full fellowship one day and considered a wonderful, decent, loveable human being. The next day, if that individual chose to make an exit, he was the “blackest, basest of scoundrels,” an “adulterer” and a “counterfeiter,” etc.

Today, we’re a little less melodramatic. But still, when a scholar, artist, intellectual, or even a rank and file member of the Church decides to leave, his character is instantly under attack: “I think he’s gay” or “I bet she’s having an affair” or “I’ve heard he’s a drug addict,” etc.